3tio, Our comparing the value of silver sometimes with the pure metal, sometimes with that compounded with alloy, involves us frequently in a language which is hardly to be understood.
Says one, a pound of silver, troy, is worth 67 shillings. He means a pound of fine silver. We in England, says another, coin our pound troy of silver into 62 shillings. He means the pound of standard silver, which contains 18 penny weights of copper. Says a third, our pound of silver, which we coin into 62 shillings, is not worth 57s. 6d. He understands the shillings of fine silver of the same weight with those of standard silver. Another affirms, that an ounce of standard silver, which, at the mint, and in the coin, is worth no more than 5s. 2d. is worth in the market 5s. 6d. He means, that one must pay at that rate for silver bullion, when they purchase it with over-rated gold. At last comes Mr. Cantillon, who, as a proof of the decline of the English commerce, affirms to us, in his Analysis of trade, p. 133. that both silver and gold bullion are dearer in the London market than in the coin: at the same time, he might have discovered the cause of it, from the lightness of the gold and silver currency at the time he wrote; since the phænomenon could proceed from nothing else: the new guineas must then have been sent abroad. Says a Frenchman, one of our crowns of 3 livres, which passes for 60 sols, is intrinsically worth no more than 56½ sols. He means, that the fine silver it contains is worth no more than 56½ sols, according to the mint price of the fine metals.
Of the abuse of terms relative to the denomination of coins.
4to, Another cause of perplexity in the money-jargon, is the prodigious abuse of the terms which express the denominations of the coin, or the numerary unit.
French historians write familiarly of sums of money in livres and crowns, through all the stages of the monarchy. English writers (for the most part) do the same, in speaking of pounds sterling. Nothing however is more different than the ideas expressed by the same term.
This illustrated by an example.
Were any person, talking of lengths and distances, to use the word foot, sometimes to signify yard, sometimes perch; or to use the word mile, to signify sometimes league, sometimes inch, and sometimes fathom; who could comprehend one word of his discourse concerning the matter? Would we not even laugh at such a person, for pretending to inform us of any thing concerning lengths or distances.
If any change be made upon the value of the money-unit of a country, which is called a pound; in propriety of language, it can no more be called a pound, after the change, than it can be called a rhinoceros.
Farther obscurities from the abuse of language.
5to, Another reason for the obscurity of money-jargon, is the manner in which writers express themselves, when they speak of variations in the value of money. Upon this occasion, says one, the King raised the money 5 per cent. What does this mean? No man living can understand the expression; because it may signify, that he raised either the denomination of the coin, or the value of the unit. If he raised the coin, he debased the unit: if he sunk the coin, he raised the unit. A crown of 6 livres is a coin: a livre is the unit. If it is said, the 6 livre piece is raised; that is as much as to say, it is made to be more than 6 units; consequently, as the silver in the piece does not change its weight, it follows, that the unit, or money of accompt, is diminished. On the other hand, if it is said that the livre is raised, it implies that the crown, which contained 6 livres, is made to contain less than 6 units; therefore, the value of the unit is raised; that is, it is made to contain more silver than before.